She's Back......

[Harry]

Source fail.

Fuck off idiot.



Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that "far-right terrorism" (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:

•A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.

•A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)

•A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.

•A tally which misreports certain attacks as "right-wing" or "far-right".

•A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.

•A report which ignores foiled plots.

•A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.

•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.

•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.

•A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the "far-right" bracket.

•A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.

The whole point of my post was that all innocent deaths matter, not just those at the hands of Islmic extremists, and I went to some length to illustrate the scale of Islamic terror victims compared to that of your garden-variety US homicides.  



Murder is bad, regardless of who does it.



Is that simple enough for you?

[Harry]

According to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index published by Institute for Economics and Peace, only 2.6 percent of terror related deaths occur in the West (for accuracy, this figure includes the September 11th attacks.) Furthermore, just 4 groups (Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al Qaeda) were responsible for 74% of the world's terror related deaths in 2015.

Correct.

Meanwhile we have progtards regurgitating a total bullshit line from thinkprogress that in the US the far right kills seven times more people than jihadists.

Source?



[Edit] Nevermind.  Got it. https://thinkprogress.org/you-are-more-than-7-times-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extremist-than-by-muslim-terrorists-417f3c3461db/">//https://thinkprogress.org/you-are-more-than-7-times-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extremist-than-by-muslim-terrorists-417f3c3461db/



Never heard of them.

[Harry]

Duplicate post.

[RW]

It probably isn't simple enough.  True story.

[Harry]

Meanwhile we have progtards regurgitating a total bullshit line from thinkprogress that in the US the far right kills seven times more people than jihadists.

Think Progress based their article on a New York Times report.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html">//https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html



I've tracked down the source paper for that report, which was produced by Arie Perliger of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point - hardly a progressive organization.



You can download the paper here:

https://ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right">//https://ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right



I haven't had a chance to read it yet.  It sounds interesting.  Thanks for the heads up.

[Anonymous]

Source fail.

Fuck off idiot.



Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that "far-right terrorism" (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:

•A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.

•A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)

•A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.

•A tally which misreports certain attacks as "right-wing" or "far-right".

•A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.

•A report which ignores foiled plots.

•A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.

•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.

•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.

•A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the "far-right" bracket.

•A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.

As rude as you are, you have a point..



A check of terror attacks in the USA indicates they must not have been entirely honest about who they assigned blame for attacks..



The Kyle Shaw, Joe Stack and Chris Dorner and the Guardians of Peace incidents for example..



There are others too.

[Wazzzup]

Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.

Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in  the US. Any other spin is a  deliberate attempt to  mislead.

When chronicling acts of terror, mainstream journalists often minimize jihadists and ignore left-wing extremists. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west: When there's an act of Islamic terror, some in the media will take great pains to minimize the threat. When there's an act of white-supremacist terror, many of the same folks will overhype the threat from the right, often making it out to be greater than the threat of jihadist terror. In either case, all too few will look past the political spin to recognize the truth: Violence is a problem at both extremes of the political spectrum, and jihadists are the most dangerous extremists of all.



Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.



Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?



Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.



Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public

They left out the Islamic inspired Orlando nightclub shooting that killed 49 people. How convenient.

They always leave that one out because even though the gunman pledged his allegiance to ISIS the lefties said he was a homophobe.   (cause Islamists are never homophobes) :001_rolleyes:    So they said that wasn't Islam.  They left other ones off too, same reason-- not islam, even when it is Islam.  How convenient eh?

[RW]

Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.

Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in  the US. Any other spin is a  deliberate attempt to  mislead.

When chronicling acts of terror, mainstream journalists often minimize jihadists and ignore left-wing extremists. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west: When there's an act of Islamic terror, some in the media will take great pains to minimize the threat. When there's an act of white-supremacist terror, many of the same folks will overhype the threat from the right, often making it out to be greater than the threat of jihadist terror. In either case, all too few will look past the political spin to recognize the truth: Violence is a problem at both extremes of the political spectrum, and jihadists are the most dangerous extremists of all.



Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.



Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?



Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.



Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public

They left out the Islamic inspired Orlando nightclub shooting that killed 49 people. How convenient.

THey alwasy leave that one out because even though the gunman pledged his aallegiance to ISIS the lefties said he was a homoh[pohbe.   yeah just like every other Islamist. :001_rolleyes:   So they said that wasn't Islam.  They left other ones off too.  How convenient eh?

But when a white guy shoots up say a school, he's just a crazy white guy.  How convenient, eh?

[Wazzzup]

Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.

Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in  the US. Any other spin is a  deliberate attempt to  mislead.

When chronicling acts of terror, mainstream journalists often minimize jihadists and ignore left-wing extremists. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west: When there's an act of Islamic terror, some in the media will take great pains to minimize the threat. When there's an act of white-supremacist terror, many of the same folks will overhype the threat from the right, often making it out to be greater than the threat of jihadist terror. In either case, all too few will look past the political spin to recognize the truth: Violence is a problem at both extremes of the political spectrum, and jihadists are the most dangerous extremists of all.



Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.



Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?



Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.



Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public

They left out the Islamic inspired Orlando nightclub shooting that killed 49 people. How convenient.

They always leave that one out because even though the gunman pledged his allegiance to ISIS the lefties said he was a homophobe   yeah just like every other Islamist. :001_rolleyes:   So they said that wasn't Islam.  They left other ones off too.  How convenient eh?

But when a white guy shoots up say a school, he's just a crazy white guy.  How convenient, eh?

Who invented this hate crime extremist crime stuff?  You lefties invent a category for extremist murders and then you want to act like it shouldn't exist. Lets have it both ways again (and again and again)



Hitler (supposed right winger) killed 6 million jews, so he's more evil than Stalin (left winger) who killed over  20 killion people.  And more than Mao (left winger) who killed over 40 million.



have it both ways some more, than have it both ways again.

[Wazzzup]

There is no way to avoid some Americans in America committing crimes.  However there IS a way to avoid imported Muslims committing crimes.  



Don't import them.

[Angry White Male]

But when a white guy shoots up say a school, he's just a crazy white guy.  How convenient, eh?

Yes.  Us crazy White guys are gathering a protest, to have him removed from prison.



We couldn't be there when he was sentenced, but maybe we can be there now.



How fucking stupid are you, RW?

[Harry]

Hitler (supposed right winger) killed 6 million jews, so he's more evil than Stalin (left winger) who killed over  20 killion people.  And more than Mao (left winger) who killed over 40 million.



have it both ways some more, than have it both ways again.  Always the same game.

I had a conversation with a Czech guy about this some years ago.  He was a Jewish guy who had been rounded up in the Holocaust, and against all odds, survived.  He subsequently immigrated to Australia, became a lawyer, and when I knew him he was still practicing.  At that time he was well into his eighties.  He had a hell of a physical constitution.



We spoke about the exact issue you mention - why, given that Stalin killed far more Jews than Hitler, was Hitler the more reviled?



He said the reason for this was that Germany was considered to be the more civilized and cultured of the two countries.  Germany was considered to be in the top tier of European civilization, whilst Russia was considered to be less civilized, and relatively barbaric.  Hence, to a WW2-era European, whilst Stalin's purges were part and parcel of the Russian culture (or lack thereof), the German genocide was incomprehensible.



I know many other reasons are cited for this, but he was there at the time, and that was his take on it.

[Anonymous]

Source fail.

Fuck off idiot.



Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that "far-right terrorism" (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:

•A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.

•A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)

•A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.

•A tally which misreports certain attacks as "right-wing" or "far-right".

•A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.

•A report which ignores foiled plots.

•A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.

•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.

•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.

•A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the "far-right" bracket.

•A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.

As rude as you are, you have a point..



A check of terror attacks in the USA indicates they must not have been entirely honest about who they assigned blame for attacks..

 

The Kyle Shaw, Joe Stack and Chris Dorner and the Guardians of Peace incidents for example..



There are others too.

Deliberate deception, but what does anyone expect from the likes of TP.

[Harry]

What's TP?

[RW]

What's TP?

Think Progress.